Pac-10 expansion: A football title game, hoops on Tuesday, the BYU issue, the Zipper plan … and the $150 million question

I’ve spent a bit of time the past few weeks talking to folks inside and outside the league about expansion, which became a sizzling topic when commissioner Larry Scott said he was looking at it “very seriously.”

Before addressing the specifics, three quick points: 1) Everyone agrees it’s an extremely complicated issue, 2) No one knows how it will turn out, and 3) Everyone is skeptical.

That said, here’s what I’ve learned:

* To say that the soul of the Pac-10 is at stake would be an overstatement — but not by much.

The presidents are aware of the huge difference in revenue between the Pac-10 and Big Ten/SEC (more below) and have dollar signs in their eyes. “Everything is for sale,” one source told me. “They’ll do anything necessary to make money.’

This doesn’t guarantee that everything will be for sale when/if the presidents ultimately sit down (as a group) to vote on expansion.

But they’ve made it very, very clear to Scott that they want more money — and they want him to lay out the options for generating more money. After all, that’s what he was hired to do.

And if Scott comes back to them in six or nine months and says, “I can get each school X million more dollars annually, but you’ll have to play basketball games every night of the week and football games on Thursday,” … if Scott says that, the presidents just might do it — even if it cuts into class time.

For decades, the Pac-10 viewed itself (rightly or wrongly) as being on higher moral and ethical ground than the SEC and Big 12, for instance. Certainly, it viewed itself as more committed to academics than those conferences.

But if the dollars are right, I’ve been told, we might see an entirely different approach.

“There will be no moral high ground if it can be monetized,” the source said.

* Procedural issues require six votes and constitutional issues need eight. But I’ve been told that all 10 schools must sign off on expansion, which means that one president could put the kibosh on the whole thing.

* Here are the specifics on the dollars, which are the key to everything.

The Pac-10 currently generates about $100 million in annual revenue while the Big Ten and SEC are both over $200 million.

The number I keep hearing out of Pac-10 circles is $150-$175 million — the presidents want another $5 – $7.5 million per school. They understand that the conference might not equal the Big Ten, but they want a 50 percent increase — if not more.

So in regards to expansion, the central question becomes: Would adding two teams create so much more net revenue that the 1/12th splits are greater than the 1/10th splits?

Scott can probably get more money for 10 schools than the league currently generates (more on that below). But can he get even more with the addition of two teams?

In other words: Let’s say he can get $150 million with the 10 schools. Could he get to $190 or $200 million with 12 schools?

I spoke to several people well-versed in the ways of TV ratings and advertising/marketing dollars, and they’re skeptical that any school not named Texas is going to bring that kind of revenue windfall. Especially in this economy.

But you can bet the conference will (or already has) hired a bevy of consultants, strategic thinkers and M&A experts to figure it out.

* How does Scott go about generating more revenue?

By creating more “inventory” — by giving TV partners more events to broadcast and sponsors more opportunities for their “signage” (that’s fancy advertising lingo, apparently).

Basically, he creates more inventory by offering up more games for TV, which is where Monday night basketball and Thursday night football enter the picture.

Another option for new revenue is to change the way the Pac-10 handles its broadcast fees — TV money that currently goes straight to the schools could go to the conference, creating a bigger pot for everyone to split.

The final option for new revenue, of course, is a football championship game, which (per NCAA rules) would require a 12-team conference.

But again, the question is whether the prospect of a Pac-10 title game — perhaps one matching Arizona vs. Oregon State in a half-empty L.A. Coliseum — would entice a TV network to increase its bid enough to offset the 1/12th revenue split.

* Which TV network would that be? Good question.

The league could re-up with FSN … or switch to ESPN … or form its own network. Again, the Pac-10 will go where the dollars are.

But my sense is that there simply isn’t enough interest — and aren’t enough households within the league’s footprint — for the Pac-10 to create its own version of the Big Ten Network.

Far more likely is a pairing with the ACC and/or Big 12 … or some kind of split deal in which the Pac-10 forms its own network but options off a portion of its “inventory” to FSN or ESPN/ESPNU.

* One way to increase inventory, of course, is by adding schools. But which ones?

San Diego State, Fresno State, UNLV, Nevada and Boise State are not part of the equation, multiple sources told me. No way, no how. They don’t work academically and they don’t work in the TV homes/revenue equation.

Unless Missouri or Texas (presumably with Texas A&M) are available — and at this point there’s no substantive reason to believe they are — then only three options exist for the conference: Utah, BYU and Colorado.

And for all practical purposes, there are only two options: Colorado and BYU, or Colorado and Utah.

Utah and BYU together simply will not work.

As I speculated a few weeks ago (and have since gotten confirmation on), you cannot add two mouths and only one trough, especially when that trough is the Salt Lake City market, which is not exactly Dallas-Ft. Worth.

I also wrote previously that the conference has long been opposed to BYU on multiple fronts:

The presidents aren’t interested in aligning with a church-affiliated school (regardless of the church), and they look down upon BYU because it’s not a research institution.

The coaches also have been opposed to BYU in the past because, as one league insider told me, “They don’t want their 18 years olds playing against 25 years olds.”

Now, what the coaches want or don’t want won’t make a lick of difference to the presidents if the money’s right. The question is: Will the money be right with BYU?

Do the Cougars, with their regional fan base, bring enough households that are not currently within the Pac-10 footprint to make the 1/12th split worthwhile?

Or, as one source quipped: “Can you monetize the Mormon Church?”

That’s for the media consultants to determine this spring/summer, but there was serious skepticism on that front among the sources I spoke to.

And if — somehow — the dollars look right with BYU and Colorado … and it ultimately comes to a vote … will all 10 presidents sign off on BYU?

“If BYU’s a home run, I think they’ll pull the trigger,” a source said. “But I’m not sure BYU’s a home run.”

My belief, unchanged over the past few weeks, is that Colorado-Utah is more realistic than Colorado-BYU … although still not as realistic as no expansion.

* Then there’s the complicated issue of creating two six-team divisions.

I’ve long believed that splitting the league like a zipper (detailed here) makes more sense than a North-South split because the Northwest schools will never agree to being cut off from Los Angeles.

Nothing I’ve heard in the past two weeks makes me think otherwise.

The Oregon and Washington schools don’t want to lose their trips to USC and UCLA (for recruiting purposes) or their visits from USC and UCLA (for ticket-selling purposes). They simply won’t approve a North-South split.

Karl Benson is a terrible comissioner for the WAC. The presidents of the 8 other schools should have his head for turning Boise into a powerhouse and making the 8 other schools fail. The presidents of the 8 schools should get together and boot his a$$ to the curb, next time hire a comissioner with no ties to any 1 school that can benefit All the schools. If the Pac-10 doesn’t invite Colorado then throw out Benson and invite Colorado and Colorado St. to the WAC. That would be 10 schools and a championship game right there.

MostWantedSpartan

If they throw out Boise with Benson.

Seth9

The Pac 10 and Big Ten have a very interesting game to play with the possibly-soon-to-be-decimated Big 12. The Pac 10 and Big Ten can grab Colorado and Missouri at will, respectively. Either school leaving would be a big punch in the gut to the Big 12, and both leaving would be a massive calamity.

Texas is very much aware of this problem. Hence, the Pac 10 and Big Ten both have multiple ways to push Texas into leaving the Big 12. For instance, the Pac 10 can come out and invite Texas and Texas A&M while saying that should they turn them down, they’ll just grab Colorado and Utah. The Big Ten can make a similar move. Meanwhile, both conferences can also use the expansion plans of the other conference to put pressure on the Texas schools as well.

Finally, I wouldn’t be surprised if the ACC, Big East, and Pac 10 all combine to make a single network. Doing so would bring in every major coastal network and enough quality football games that people would actually care (while ensuring that the network is a tremendous draw for basketball). Furthermore, such a network could also pick up the Chicago area. The network itself would be viable, but revenue sharing would be a massive logistical problem, especially as football TV revenue is so much higher than basketball.

Seth9

@MostWantedSpartan:

Quick question: Why on earth would Colorado ever join the WAC?

Also, when Boise State does well, the WAC gets a big payout from the BCS. Since their other bowl tie-ins pay practically nothing, Boise State is the main source of revenue for the WAC. Meanwhile, the assertion that Benson made the other schools fail is simply laughable in it’s stupidity.

Telrod

Hmmm……BYU………hmmm. Wait a minute, don’t they have millions and millions of “extra” wives? They’d probably bring these millions of extra wives to the CAL games. There undoubtedly would be a lot of “lost wives”….lost wives roaming all over Strawberry Canyon….lost and bewildered. You could put some cookies and milk (freshly baked) out on Panoramic Way to lure the “Lost Wives of BYU”. We could let BYU in and kick out WSU,ASU,OSU—those guys don’t have wives.

Ranger John

JT “giving the schools the resources they need to compete”, hasn’t Stanford consistently won more championships in ALL sports than other schools (ie. swimming, water polo, soccer, etc…)?

This whole issue is about greed for the CEO’s of the PAC 10 and creating a bigger monopoly in college sports. The Pac 10 brass are just jealous of the more $$$’ed conferences(Big Ten, SEC, Big 12).

Last year San Jose St. had to take a bus for 6 hours to play USC in 95 degree heat, losing 2 D linemen to injury with 45 travel players to 120 SC players on the sideline. Returning by bus they wasted another practice day prior to the Utah game the following week not to mention school work.

Having to play and recruit with these hardships of 67 scholarship (the past years) to 85 for most all other schools, you can easily see the disparity in just CA schools. (Plus now with higher tuition, SJS can’t afford to recruit anyone from out of state).

So you see, I really want to GAG when I hear about the poor PAC 10 having to look at new REVENUE GENERATION ideas.

MountainWestFan

The PAC-10 is in trouble with the emergence of the Mountain West in football-and they know it. If the MWC gets an auto bid in 2012 the PAC-10 will have to compete for recruits and national attention. What better way to keep that from happening then to poach the conference of one of its premier teams.

OT

@seth9:

The Big Ten can choke off the Pac-10 if the Big Ten decides to expand to 16 schools and take either Colorado or Arizona State (Arizona would be less likely) in addition to Texas, Texas A&M, Missouri, and Rutgers.

Also would not be surprised if the 16-team Big Ten will switch its bowl tie-in to the Cotton Bowl (and bring the Cotton Bowl to the BCS) or the Fiesta Bowl (to replace the decimated Big 12) from the Rose Bowl after January 1, 2014.

Ranger John

Go BYU, I like your take on the MWC, but San Diego St did orchestrate the first jump with UNLV to that conference, created some hard feelings when they only too UNLV for the $$$ from the Vegas Visitors Bureau for conference championships in LV.

Eric

Wow! Talk about the high and mighty. It is hard to fathom that such prejudice can exist with such open minded people. I guess open mindedness only exists if you agree with all of the wonderful openminded liberals.

OT

The Big Ten is looking at 15 schools, though Rutgers looks to be the most obvious candidate for the Big Ten to start its “land grab”:

I don’t see the Big Ten expanding to 16 schools right away unless the Big Ten can get Texas (which would bring Texas A&M with it).

All hell will break loose if Texas jumps to the Big Ten because Arizona State and Colorado would then be fair game for the Big Ten “land grab” for TV households. The Pac-10 will be choked off and be marginalized as a “mid major” if Arizona State were to jump to the Big Ten.

Johnny 0.

If the league does expand, I hope they’re smart about the Title Game and the Pac-10 basketball tournament. Move the Pac-10 tourney to Vegas, and have the football title game at the Cardinals stadium in Glendale, Arizona or in San Diego at Qualcomm Stadium.

Make it a yearly destination where people want to go, and where the locals might actually care about the game and buy tickets, too. The Pac-10 tourney is a non-event in LA.

Richard

OT:
ND’s TV contract actually pays them less than the TV money every Big10 school (including Northwestern and Indiana) gets. Their TV deal isn’t the hang-up; it’s the backlash they fear from their alums if they ever give up independence.

I took Nebraska because of it’s brand name. I know it’s in a low-population state and all, but Nebraska-OSU, Nebraska-PSU and Nebraska-Michigan still would grab more casual fans than Mizzou-Michigan, Rutgers-OSU, etc.

If no ND, then go down the list of Maryland/Syracuse/Colorado/Mizzou until someone’s willing. All those schools are equal to what Arizona/ASU bring, and they’re closer.

BTW, Syracuse would bring upstate New York (not a small population) and help a little in NYC.

Richard

Seth9:
A Pac10/ACC/Big East network would NOT have any penetration in Chicago (I live there), or really, any part of the Midwest. However, it would cover the coasts.

This is actually one of the few positives of people migrating from the Rust Belt; because we send retirees to Florida and Arizona, engineers to Silicon Valley, a ton of alums to the East Coast (many students came from there), and border Big12 and SEC territory (not to mention have a footprint that covers a quarter of the country’s population), the BTN is best positioned to become a national network. Pac10 people don’t really migrate east of the Rockies, and other than the Northeast, ACC people don’t move many other places either. Still, having both coasts wouldn’t be bad.

Jon, I’ve enjoyed reading your blogs about Pac-10 expansion related issues. I try to follow these issues as closely as possible and your observations and sources make a lot more sense than most “blogs” or writers.

In that article I had come to the conclusion that the best alignment for an expanded 12 team Pac-10 would be:

PACIFIC
Washington
Washington State
Oregon
Oregon State
Stanford
USC

MOUNTAIN
Cal
UCLA
Arizona
Arizona State
Utah
Colorado

This would have the same affect as the “zipper” where the NW schools still get access to the California recruiting grounds, but it would also preserve the regional rivalries inside the divisional format.

Subsequently it would also split up the bigger football schools (USC, UCLA, Washington, Cal, ASU, Oregon) so that the balance of power is evenly distributed.

Thanks again for keeping up with this intriguing issue!

Scott

Telrod

First there was Larry Scott and now there’s Scott Wilson……we’re drowning in scott. All this Scott adds up to a pile of scat. All of this huffing and puffing, and pontificating presumes one single thing: present demand will remain stable. It won’t. Just like Conan on “Tonight,” nobody will watch. These rivalries are ancient and fragile things, like recipes handed down generations and people will care only if their team plays certain other teams even if they’re played in sandlots. And nobody gives a rusty rat’s ass about TV deals or if some coach won’t make 10 million this year. People are tired of TARPs and bailouts and backroom dealing and the kind of Goldman Sachs money corruption that’s congealed into an all pervasive mustard gas. Choking everyone.

Let the coaches eat cake, let them go to the NFL, because amateur sports could turn around and go in the exact opposite direction. The air is going to escape from this bubble, and not be filled with scat

MostWantedSpartan

@seth

Answers: There are many reasons for Colorado to join the WAC. First of all exposure to the west. I can’t recall even seeing them play in the last couple of years. Second competition, they might actually be able to win a title. Third the WAC is up and coming off the exposure from ESPN. The contract is horrible but the exposure is priceless.

Boise success has been from joining the WAC and not the other way around. Nobody in the world even heard of Boise until Benson brought them into the WAC 10 years ago.

Your comment:
“Since their other bowl tie-ins pay practically nothing, Boise State is the main source of revenue for the WAC. Meanwhile, the assertion that Benson made the other schools fail is simply laughable in it’s stupidity.”

Yeah and why do their bowl tie-ins pay practically nothing? Who’s responsible for that? You obviously are not too bright since your whole statement contradicts itself. Laugh away I don’t see anything funny about this and neither do the other 8 school presidents I’m sure. The WAC has become snow white and the 8 dwarfs and it’s all thanks to Benson. Granted for selfish reasons I want San Jose to join the Pac10 but I see now that sportsmanship and rivalry is not high on their shopping list. It’s all about the benny’s with them.

Richard

MostWantedSpartan:

The WAC tie-ins pay nothing because nobody wants to watch the other WAC teams. Changing commissioners won’t change that fact. Face it, the WAC is like a collection of ugly girls with one kinda cute gal in the coterie. Changing the hairdresser the coterie goes through won’t make them more appealing.

Then again, I’m arguing with someone who actually thinks there are reasons for Colorado to join the WAC, so I don’t know why I’m bothering.

Nickybudda

It is funny that for 5 years you pretended to be a civil rights crusader with regarding to attacking Notre Dame for firing Ty Willingham. The basis for this conclusion was some papist theory a la The Da Vinci Code with wild speculation about smoked filled meeting with swarthy Catholic trustees conspiring about how to fire the African American coach that it had just hired. I called you on your anti-Catholic bias at the time and asked you to do your history on the rise of Catholic schools, which was akin to the growth of African American schools. Catholics were looked down on and distrusted and had to create there own opportunities because many Americans didn’t want them here or at there precious public institutions. It was Notre Dame’s religious affiliation (which apparently the Pac 10 officials are skeptical about, according to you) that led the Big Ten to refuse to allow ND to join decades ago — led by Michigan (but ND was supported by MSU and Purdue). To see you so flippantly state that the Pac 10 continues these anti-Catholic or anti-Mormon or anti-religion policies 60 years latter proves that you are not the civil rights hero you pretended to be in railing against ND. It apparently never crossed your mind to ask why the Pac 10 would be “skeptical” of allowing a university to join solely because it has a religious affiliation. If that skepticism isn’t the same skepticism that exist with regard to Catholic immigrants in the early 20th century, then what is it? What is there to be skeptical about Notre Dame, Santa Clara University, Georgetown, Villanova, Gonzaga, St. Mary’s, the University of San Diego, etc.? You just accept without comment that the skepticism is legitimate. Would you accept it as legitimate if the Pac 10 just dismissed all African Ameican schools because of some “skepticism”? Where’s the civil rights soap box? Where are the tirades addressing this overt bigotry? I hear silence, but at least we see your true colors.

P.s. If you don’t think this is religious bigotry, read number 62 above.

The Wisdom Cow

“Religious affiliation” is code, Nickybudda. It is a polite way to say LDS scares the hell out of Pac 10 presidents, and as BYU may be forces to take an absurdly prejudicial and intolerant stance, they do not want to be closely associated with them.

When LDS jumped into politics with prop 8, BYU suffered by association.

Go BYU

(typed in a sarcastic voice) oh no, Wisdom Cow, what will the Mormon church do next?? They’ve already done the most radical thing anyone could have ever imagined, which was to side with what turned out to be the MAJORITY of voting Californians in a statewide ELECTION. That’s scary as hell.

As for how absurdly prejudicial it is, only time will tell, but Prop 8 opponents need to get over the LDS Church’s involvement in the whole thing, it was pretty small. Honestly, in this forum right now, hardly anyone seems willing to listen to the Mormon voice, do you really expect me to think that the majority of California voters were listening to the Mormon voice when they cast their vote? Give me a break.

But just to close out this tangent, the Church is a wholeheartedly enthusiastic supporter of the democratic process, and they live by the laws of the land, its in their Articles of Faith, and their actions demonstrate that.

MostWantedSpartan

@Richard

Nobody wants to watch the WAC?

The facts say otherwise. I’m not sure why you are arguing either maybe it’s just something in the air? Nice analogy but you could probably apply that analogy to very conference including the BCS 6.

MostWantedSpartan

Question for anybody in the know. If you don’t know then please don’t comment.

Why did what is now the MWC split from the WAC?

Is there anybody in the know?

bueller?

Go BYU

I believe the MWC/WAC split was a result of old rivalries from the original WAC-10 being busted up by the divisions that were created in the WAC-16.

Which, by the way, is what keeps popping up in my mind with all the BS comments above about these monster hypothetical conferences. I don’t think they would stand the test of time. If the 6 AQ conferences think the TV footprint is the big deal, I think they would have an easier time creating a “super TV network” and keeping the conferences more or less the way they are. I don’t think the fans will like the rivalries getting messed up, and we already have a mechanism for playing interesting non-conference games. Too bad that mechanism is not put to better use, I think teams like Texas should be ashamed of the non-conference patsies they schedule. My employer, KU, is even more pathetic in that regard!

The Wisdom Cow

Go BYU, I’ve had this argument too many time. Basically, there is a huge difference between Mormons collectively and their church, and it is the same with virtually every religion. Just today, some Colorado kid was expelled from his Catholic school because the school learned the kid’s parents were gay. Sure, it’s their right. They are a private school, but don’t you see how such things scare some university officials when talking partnerships. A Partnership with BYU is a partnership with LDS.

And that slim majority of CA voters WAS influenced by LDS advertising dollars used in fearmongering ads. Moreso, that a majority voted for the measure is irrelevent. What percentage of Alabama residents were against desegregation?

I know Cal and UCLA take great pride in tolerance, and I believe the word is even found in the Pac 10 charter. The Pac 10 presidents are uncomfortable with LDS because many people believe your church is not. Even if it merely participating in the democratic process (so much Utah money in a CA election), the perception is that LDS demonstrated a willingness to publicly participate in intolerance.

Your sarcasm, I am sure, was greatly appriciated by any gay couple who felt their life was effected, their liberty interests denied, by prop 8.

Ranger John

Most Wanted SJS entered the WAC in 1996 preceeded by San Diego St. ’78, Hawaii ’79, Air Force ’80, Fresno St ’92, After just 3 season with SJS in the mix, San Diego State orchestrated a coup to take all the schools with highest game attendance figures and newly added UNLV because of the $100,000. contribution from the Vegas Visitors Bureau for all championships to be held there.

The Conference had been around since ’62
Teams like Tulsa, UTEP, Baylor, and Colorado St were part of the conference but only Colo St was taken because the Mt West was consolidating so as to 1)keep the highest attendance teams, shorten travel mileage, and keep that big vegas payout, the best of all three worlds!!! Spartan attendance was lacking 10,000-15,000 per game.

MostWantedSpartan

“I believe the MWC/WAC split was a result of old rivalries from the original WAC-10 being busted up by the divisions that were created in the WAC-16.”

GBYU- Knowing what you now know about the presidents and their interests, using this article as an example, do you still believe that?

interesting..

I too underestimate the power of the dark$ide. I hate the fact that it’s all about the benny’s. I mean it’s supposed to be my escape from the real world but damn if it ain’t all just a big setup.

Take the SJMN as a sample. It’s all just a bunch of Cal and Stanford guys that are working at the merc that get their stories and ads played. The SJSU alumni never write any stories. So we always see Stanford and Cal in a “good light” and hardly ever even see the hometown team in the paper. Actually the coverage has gotten a little better but nowhere near where it should be. Hopefully this changes soon.

OT

Go Byu wrote:

“If the 6 AQ conferences think the TV footprint is the big deal, I think they would have an easier time creating a “super TV network” and keeping the conferences more or less the way they are. ”

The 6 major conferences are each jockeying for position and money. They will attack and cannibalize each other if necessary in order to keep themselves alive.

1. The SEC is set for the next 15 years now that it has scared ESPN into overpaying the SEC to keep the SEC from setting up its own TV network (in association with Comcast or FOX Cable). The SEC won’t add or subtract schools for a while.

2. The Big Ten is on the war path and will expand. Whether the Big Ten expands to 12 schools or at least 14 schools will depend on whether Texas will jump (and bring Texas A&M with it). Rutgers appear to be a lock for the 12th spot because the Big Ten wants Time Warner, Comcast, Cablevision, and Verizon FIOS (not to mention DirecTV and DISH Network) to move the Big Ten Network from the sports tier to expanded digital basic in the New York City TV market. If Texas and Texas A&M were to jump, then the Big Ten has the option to grow to 16 schools and the likes of Missouri, Colorado, and both Arizona State and Arizona will be in play for the final 2 spots (Unless Notre Dame were to succumb and join the Big Ten as the 15th member after Texas and Texas A&M are added.)

3. The Big 12 is being squeezed by the Big Ten from the east and the Pac 10 from the west. If Texas and Texas A&M were to jump to the Big Ten, then the Big 12 is finished as a major conference because none of the remaining schools will have access to a Top 15 TV market, and there is virtually no chance the Big 12 can poach schools from other leagues with significant following in a Top 15 TV market to rebuild (TCU and Rice are too small to matter in their TV markets, and U of Houston is at best the 3rd school in the Houston TV market behind Texas and Texas A&M.)

4. The Pac 10 is literally stuck in no man’s land. Utah and BYU don’t bring enough TV households to generate enough revenue, while Colorado is at best a borderline expansion candidate. UBC won’t generate enough revenue for at least 5 years even if the NCAA were to allow UBC to join the NCAA Division I tomorrow.

5. If the Big Ten really wants be to the king of college sports, it can kill off the Big 12 by grabbing Texas and Texas A&M, and possibly Missouri or Colorado, and it can choke off the Pac 10 by grabbing Arizona or Arizona State.

Richard

OT:
I agree with you for the most part, except for the Arizona bit. As I mentioned before, there are 4-5 schools that bring as much as Arizona or more and are closer.
First, there’s
ND
Texas (&TAMU)

If neither of those 2 agree to go to the Big10, the Big10 isn’t expanding, much less going to 16 teams.

Assuming they do join, there would be 2-4 spots left for
Rutgers
Syracuse (they bring upstate NY, which is at least as populous as Arizona)
Nebraska (small population but a national brand)
Mizzou
Colorado
Maryland

All of the above except Maryland would definitely say “yes” to the Big10.
Even if you exclude Nebraska because of it’s population and Maryland, there are still 4 schools (‘Cuse, Rutgers, Mizzou, Colorado) that bring as much as Arizona and are closer.

MostWantedSpartan:
You must still be in school. When you get out to the real world, you’ll discover that it’s _always_ about the benjamins.

Richard

BTW, being far from anyone else is actually both a curse and a blessing for the Pac10. It’s true that there aren’t any good expansion targets nearby besides Colorado, but being 2 timezones away from other major conferences also means that nobody will rip apart the Pac10. If you think about it, the Pac10 has the same unstable, top-heavy dynamics that the Big12 has. However, no conference can realistically take away the Cali schools (specifically the SoCal schools).

Mark

There is NO WAY Texas and A&M are going to travel every other week to the west coast.
Why not add the best program west of Texas, Boise State. The strength of schedule they bring to every team they play might just get a 1 loss PAC-10 team into the National Championship game, as well as a the second place team into the Rose Bowl. How much money is that worth?

Go BYU

Oh I definitely think money was involved in the WAC-16 breakup. But ultimately, the money comes from us (the fans), it doesn’t come out of the ground like oil, so the size of the map doesn’t necessarily help. They have to deliver a product that is compelling. I think after a few seasons had passed, and they all saw the types of games they were playing, it was clear to the teams that formed the MWC that the WAC-16 didn’t make sense, or $ense, depending on how you want to spell it.

Maybe I’m not using the correct part of my brain, but I just don’t see how some mega-conference with teams taken from all over the map is going to look better to us (the fans). Bigger isn’t always better. Did someone mention a 23-team conference up above? I mean, when I see that, 23 teams is like 1/3 of BC$-AQ college football. Why stop there? Keep going and soon you’re the entire NCAA.

That is what I was trying to say. From the point of view of the fan, we already have an NCAA, and we already have the interesting games that we like to see played each year (our conferences and their rivalries), and we already have a way to see other interesting games played occasionally (non-conference and bowls). I think the system gives the conferences a tangible reward whey they reach 12 teams (a championship game). But after that, I don’t know, I think you just start looking bloated and ripe for the next shakeup.

OT

@Richard:

The way I see the Big Ten land grab expansion to 16 teams play out:

1. Notre Dame will not be the 12th school

2. Texas will not be the 12th school

3. Rutgers will probably join the Big Ten as the 12th school now that the Big Ten has a report in hand as a guide. I consider Rutgers to be a lock at this point.

4. Once the Big Ten secures Rutgers, the Big Ten will go after Texas and Texas A&M as the 13th and 14th schools

5. When Texas and Texas A&M are added to the Big Ten, Notre Dame would have no choice but to ask the Big Ten for admission or risk being marginalized in the new landscape of college football.

6. If the Big Ten were to add Notre Dame as the 15th team (no guarantee because Notre Dame won’t bring any new TV markets to the Big Ten Network), then the Big Ten has one spot left to hit another home run.

7. Instead of Missouri, Colorado, or Syracuse (or Pittsburgh, Nebraska, Maryland, Arizona, or Arizona State), the Big Ten can make the boldest and most outrageous move yet with the 16th spot by grabbing the school in the Pac 10 with the biggest brand and biggest TV market: USC

If the Big Ten can pull off the impossible by adding Rutgers, Texas, Texas A&M, Notre Dame, and USC in that order, then the Big Ten Network would have expanded digital basic cable distribution in the Top 5 TV markets: New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia, and Dallas-Fort Worth.

The Big Ten would then be the undisputed king of college sports conferences, while the Big 12 and Pac-10 would both be wounded (and the Big 12 in particular would be finished as a major conference).

MostWantedSpartan

Per Jon:

“The presidents are aware of the huge difference in revenue between the Pac-10 and Big Ten/SEC (more below) and have dollar signs in their eyes. “Everything is for sale,” one source told me. “They’ll do anything necessary to make money.’”

This statement says to me that rivalries and geography and all the other things we as fans think make for good entertainment don’t even matter to them. The presidents make the decisions and so I guess I just want for them to hear the voice of this one fan. Can you at least try to make a conference so we can see our beloved Spartans play. The price of gas/flights, hotel rooms and tickets are high and we rarely get beyond Reno to watch games against conference foes. It’s not that we don’t want to fly to Ruston, Louisianna or Hawaii we just can’t afford it (who’s idea was that?). I guess $$ aside I like the PAC-10 for geography reasons and that’s my own selfish reason for wanting the Spartans in the Pac-10. I mean we could afford to go to every game! I guess money is the bottom line for us too but it’s an expense for us not income. It’s not like we don’t want to go to Louisianna or Hawaii, we’d LOVE too if we could. I could see us traveling to Colorado though, again my own selfish reason. Does it make enough $? For the sake of the WAC let’s hope the Presidents can throw out Benson and the Idaho coup and find a west coast guy that cares about making $$ for the other 7.

OT

@MostWantedSpartan:

The major conferences are all about money, which means they are all about TV markets.

If the Big Ten were formed today as a cable-TV-driven mega-conference, Iowa would not be admitted (because its TV markets of significant influence are too small), but Rutgers, Texas, Texas A&M, the Arizona schools, and even USC would be considered for admission.

(It’s actually easier for the likes of Michigan or Ohio State to travel to play Rutgers, Texas, or USC than to play Iowa.)

If the Pac-10 were formed today, then Washington State would not be admitted.

Geographic proximity are for the “mid-major” conferences like the WAC, which takes in the schools that are left over after all the other conferences have picked all the big money schools.

OT

@Go BYU:

The WAC going to 16 teams made no sense. Because of that, the WAC had to break up.

But the Big Ten expanding to 16 teams will make way too much $en$e.

Can you imagine a TV-driven behemoth mega-conference, stretching from coast to coast, involving the following teams?

The Big Ten is the only one that has the revenue streams to lure Rutgers, Texas, Texas A&M, Notre Dame, and USC.

The Pac-10 is making noise about expansion now because it knows that the Big Ten can and will attack any other conference, including the Pac-10 (USC being the biggest prize, but the Arizona schools are also potential targets), if the Pac-10 were to still.

“(U of Washington Athletic Director Steve) Woodward also talked about expansion and said the Pac-10 and the Big Ten have reached out to officials at Texas and Texas A&M. “I’d be surprised if our office is not in contact with them,” he said. “I’m sure those conversations have happened and are taking place.”

When asked if the league might expand beyond two teams, Woodward said that’s a possibility. “It could be two, four or a merger of Big 12. … There’s a theory that at the end of the day there’s only going to be four super conferences. Now that it’s going to look like, God only knows.”

OT

@Richard:

The one thing we can agree on:

– The Big 12 is finished and will be cannibalized if and when Texas and Texas A&M make the jump to the Big Ten as the 13th and 14th schools.

What we can’t agree on:

– The 12th school for the Big Ten. I see Rutgers as a lock, but you don’t.

– Whether the Big Ten will attack the Pac-10 by grabbing USC or one of the Arizona schools to reach 16 schools once Notre Dame gives in and follow the coattails of Texas and Texas A&M to join the Big Ten as the 15th school.

Ken Mills

I’ll bet the Pac 10 is kicking it’s own butt for not taking Texas back in the 90’s when Texas applied…

This is what they missed out on:

Endowment: 5th largest ($12 billion),

Academics: #47 ranking in the US News survey and 75th on the list of best world universities, one of the top 30 research universities,

a tv market that has 24,000,000 viewers, a university that generated $138,000,000 in revenue last year and sent $5 Million of that back to the University for academics

sports: participates in 20+ sports (mens/womens) and consistently ranked in the top 10 in those sports and has about 50 National Championships in all sports

Recruiting: Texas high schools routinely places about 400 high school football player recruits each year in Division I school programs and in addition has large recruiting bases for baseball, basketball, golf, swimming, track

Enrollment: Main campus has 50,000 students with one of the largest and most prestigious advanced degree programs.

Alumni Base: Over 500,000 active alumni nationwide.

They would be the most prestigious school in the PAC 10 now if they had been accepted when they were interested. Too Bad! You know the old saying about opportunity knocking on your door.

Ken Mills

RE: #138

Facilities:

A football stadium that seats 102,000 and is sold out for all games. The only way to get a season ticket is wait for a season ticket holder to die.

OT

@Ken Mills:

Stanford was the one that objected to the addition of U of Texas to the Pac-10.

The Pac-10 is falling further and further behind into “no man’s land” of major college sports. For the time being, it is not in imminent danger of being attacked. But if the Big Ten can poach Texas and Texas A&M from the Big 12, then the Big Ten can expand further west by grabbing USC and/or the Arizona schools from the Pac-10.

Richard

Don’t know why you’re fixated on Arizona. It only has as many people as Missouri and less than NJ.

I’ve entertained the idea of the Big10 grabbing the 4 Cali Pac-10 schools (USC isn’t going to leave UCLA behind, and in general, I don’t see the 4 Cali schools separating). That’s too wild of an idea even for me, though.

However, something akin to that idea was actually considered (way back in the ’50’s!)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific-10_Conference:
“Following a “pay-for-play” scandal at several PCC institutions (specifically Cal, USC, UCLA and Washington), the PCC disbanded in 1959. When those four and Stanford started talking about forming a new conference, retired Admiral Thomas J. Hamilton interceded and suggested the schools consider creating a “power conference.” Nicknamed the “Airplane Conference”, the five PCC schools would have played with other big schools including Army, Navy, Air Force, Notre Dame, Penn, Penn State, Duke, and Georgia Tech among others. The effort fell through when a Pentagon official vetoed the idea and the service academies backed out.”

Richard

You know, going with this more, the Big10 could actually expand to 16 by grabbing the Cali schools and Washington. It would still be the Big 10 (10 states), Washington, and the Cali schools fit with the academic profile of the rest of the Big10 perfectly (unlike some other schools being considered like Mizzou & Syracuse, who are borderline acceptable academically), and the kicker is that not only could Big10 rivalries still be maintained, but the Big10 schools would play each other only slightly less often! Right now, each Big10 school has 2 permanent annual rivalry games and play the other schools 3/4th of the time. In a 16-team Big10, Washington, Stanford, Cal, UCLA, and USC would permanently be in the west, OSU & Michigan would permanently be in the east, and 3 of the other 9 Big10 schools would rotate to the west. Since those 9 schools would be in the west a third of the time, each Big10 school would still play each other at least 2/3rds of the time. In fact, you could even make some rivalries permanent that aren’t now with this scheme. Each team plays 7 intra-divisional games and 1 inter-divisional game, so you could have Michigan always be Minnesota’s interdivisional game when they rotate west, OSU always be Illinois’s interdivisional-game, and rotate MSU along with Indiana (Michigan would always be MSU’s intradivisional game and OSU would always be PSU’s intradivisional game).
The trios would be
Minn-Iowa-Wisconsin
Northwestern-Illinois-PSU
Indiana-PU-MSU

You also wouldn’t need a league championship game (which the Big10 may not want because it makes becoming a national champion harder); just have the 2 divisional winners play in the Rose Bowl.

OT

@Richard:

“Don’t know why you’re fixated on Arizona. It only has as many people as Missouri and less than NJ.”

After thinking about this more and more, I now see the Arizona schools as nothing more than back-up candidates for the Big Ten’s 16th school if USC were to turn down the invitation after Rutgers, Texas, Texas A&M, and Notre Dame are admitted (in that order).

One of the reasons why Pac-10 basketball is terrible is because the top players in California want to play at schools that broadcast their games on ESPN or ESPN2 when they come home from practice after school.

USC can solve that problem by following Notre Dame into the Big Ten as the 16th school. The Notre Dame-USC football rivalry will also be preserved under that scenario.

USC can always schedule UCLA each season as a non-conference game the way Georgia and Georgia Tech or Florida and Florida State play each other on Thanksgiving weekend.

The Big Ten expansion sweepstakes is turning into “Kabuki Theatre”.

Because neither Notre Dame nor Texas want to make the first move, I see the Big Ten grabbing Rutgers first. (Sorry Missouri, Pitt, and Syracuse.)

Because Notre Dame gets a big chunk of Big East basketball TV money, it isn’t that far behind the Big Ten schools in terms of total TV revenue.

I don’t see Notre Dame wanting to join the Big Ten unless the Big Ten gets Rutgers, Texas, and Texas A&M ahead of them so that the revenue disparity between the Big Ten schools and Notre Dame becomes too big for Notre Dame to ignore.

==

Back to the Pac-10: the Pac-10 may end up having to admit Colorado to replace USC just to get its membership back to 10 schools if the Big Ten were able to hit the jackpot by grabbing USC as the 16th school.

Ken Mills

At some point, if the Big 10, PAC, SEC get too big and really makes the other’s non competitive they will be in violation of the Federal Antitrust law and could come under the scrutiny of the Feds….has anyone thought of that?

Richard

A Big 10 with 16 or even 20 members is still far less than a majority of college football. It’s not like the NCAA restricting it’s members to only a handful of games on TV each year.

BTW, the charge against the NCAA was that it engaged in “price fixing, output restraints, boycott, and monopolizing”. A Big10 competing with several other conferences couldn’t be found guilty of any of that.

Richard

USC isn’t going anywhere without UCLA (and Cal and Stanford). Are you from California? Because I have a hard time imagining any Californian would think any of the Cali schools would leave the rest of the Cali schools behind.

It’s either the 2 Texas schools or the 4 Cali schools to get to 16 first. I could actually see a 20-school Big10 down the road that has all 4 Cali schools, the 2 Texas schools, Washington, Rutgers, and ND (or Maryland or Syracuse).

Let’s say the 20th school is Maryland. The Big10 would have virtually all the top research universities that play DivI-A college football.

The quadrants would be

West:
Washington
USC
UCLA
Cal
Stanford

North:
Minn
Wisconsin
Iowa
IL
Northwestern

Central:
Michigan
MSU
OSU
Indiana
Purdue

Outside:
Texas
TAMU
PSU
Rutgers
Maryland

West pair with Outside or North to form a division (with Central getting the other).

So West would never play Central, and North would never play Outside, but the old Big10 schools would still play each other at least half the time, and PSU still plays OSU, MSU, and Michigan half the time.

No championship game; the winner of the divisions play in the Rose Bowl, and in this world there would be a plus-one, with the Big10 champ represented pretty much every year.

OT

@Richard:

“USC isn’t going anywhere without UCLA (and Cal and Stanford). Are you from California? Because I have a hard time imagining any Californian would think any of the Cali schools would leave the rest of the Cali schools behind. ”

The only Pac-10 school from California that would consider jumping to the Big Ten by itself, in my opinion, is USC, but only as the Big Ten’s 16 school after the Big Ten bulks up by adding Notre Dame and Texas (and Texas A&M).

Cal and Stanford don’t command the Bay Area market the way USC football has a grip of the Los Angeles TV market. (LA hasn’t had an NFL team in almost 20 years.)

Even though Cal and Stanford both consider USC football to be rivals, USC really doesn’t care about either Cal or Stanford.

A jump to the Big Ten by USC will instantly upgrade USC’s basketball program because any player from California who signs with USC will get a shot at playing during prime time in the Eastern and Central Time Zones on the ESPNs and the Big Ten Network, something the Pac-10 schools can’t offer.

MostWantedSpartan

@OT:

San Jose has great potential. The 1 million residents of the city itself plus the 12 million potential viewers surrounding the Bay area are there.

The product on the field “should” start to improve since the NCAA APR penalties sent the programs to near death but are now positioning for a major rebound. The Pac-10 already has a couple of peices of the Bay Area market with Stanford and Cal but they are missing the biggest slice of the pie by NOT having the biggest city in the bay in the mix.

I say add San Jose and Fresno and you lock up the Bay and central valley. Otherwise we get to watch San Jose and Fresno against Boise, Idaho, LT, NMSU, Hawaii, etc..

Being in the WAC is like getting pulled over and ticketed and when you show up to court the judge is the brother of the cop who ticketed you. Good luck winning that battle.

My Hopes: Either Fresno and San Jose to the Pac10 or Benson and his Alma Mater Boise st. out of the WAC and take Idaho with you.

OT

@MostWantedSpartan:

The Pac-10 hired Kevin Weinberg (the point man behind the launch of the Big Ten Network) for one reason: to get the Pac-10 Network off the ground ASAP (or scare the likes of ESPN or FOX into overpaying for the next Pac-10 TV deal the way the SEC scared ESPN) in order to 1) generate much more revenue for each school, and 2) hopefully keep USC from jumping to the Big Ten should the Big Ten decide to make a play for USC (but only after the Big Ten is able to add Texas, Texas A&M, and especially Notre Dame).

The Pac-10 Network (if it were to launch) will have expanded digital basic cable/satellite TV placement throughout California especially Los Angeles and the Bay Area.

There is no need, from the cable TV revenue generation perspective, for the Pac-10 to add another California school.